WIFE WHO LOVED BEST MAN

NZ Truth, Issue 1263, 13 February 1930, Page 7

WIFE WHO LOVED BEST MAN

Harris Had No Hesitation In Telling The World About It All

REVELATIONS DURING BIGAMY CASE

(From . "N.Z. Truth's" Special Wellington Kepresentatiye.) iMmMiiiMiiiimiiiuiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMmmiimiiiniiiiiimim j Some remarkable allegations were made m the Wellington Supreme Court, when | | James William Hudd was charged with bigamy. | 1 Hudd /alleged, among other things, that his erstwhile best man, Frederick James f | Harris, developed too keen an interest m Mrs. Hudd, and it was as a result of the state I 1 of affairs Hudd believed existed that all the trouble arose. 1 I Hudd was found not guilty of bigamy, but guilty of making a false declaration m | j the marriage register. He was remanded for sentence, but v the matter was further ad- | | journed pending a legal decision on two technical points. < - ; J oiiimiimiimiiuini iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiimiiiHiiiimmiiiiii liiiiimni nun m m niiiiiiiiiiiiin iiiiiiminiiiniiii iiminiiiiiiiiuiiiiii iiiiiihiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiii imii?

HUDD was charged that having on May 23, 1915, married Violet Emily Walker, m England, and being on May 14, 1927, then married, he did go through a form of marriage with Ida Browning at Wellington. He was further charged that on May 13, 1927, he did wilfully make or. cause to be made, for insertion m the marriage register, a false statement, that he was a bachelor, and that his age was 30 years. • The case was heard by Mr. Justice Reed, and a jury. Mr. F. W. Ongley appeared for Hudd,

who pleaded not guilty to both charges. In conducting the prosecution for the Crown, Mr. P. K. Macassey said Hudd had given his age as thirty, when it was actually 38. Hudd had acted m a very cowardly manner. Unfortunately there had been three children to the second wife, two of whom were twins. Detective Murray stated that he had interviewed Hudd on December 18 last and had shown him evidence relating to his marriage m England and also a letter from his wife, Violet. The letter referred to the alleged cruelty of Hudd towards his wife after the marriage. When home on war leave he had allegedly > acted violently towards her and, ' knocked .her about. Because of this and 1 his failure to maintain her, said the detective, she had left him m 1919, and returned to her parents. ' During this time the child remained with her and Mra. Hudd's. father would not allow Hudd to sec the child. ■ / 'Mrs. Hudd had heard later that her husband had sold up and/gone abroad. «■ She then obtained work, being uftable to obtain information regarding her husband's' whereabouts. She was dependent upon . her earnings as a waitress and her finances were low. Hudd had made a statement to Detective Murray m which he denied the veracity of the particulars supplied by his wife. He did not, however, deny the allegation of cruelty, but said that he had left his wife because of her alleged relations with another man. He had heard repeatedly that she was dead. ' ■ ■-..-. On several occasions Miss Browning, the second wife, had suggested marriage and was allegedly aware of his previous marriage. She did not, it was stated, conßider this to be any obstacle, and allegedly had told him he should represent himself to be a bachelor and reduce his age. While he had believed his wife to be dead, he allegedly admitted that he might, perhaps, have made more searching inquiries. Alexander Young, barrister and solicitor, gave evidence that Hudd's first marriage certificate was binding both m England and New Zealand. Joseph Palethorpe, Registrar of Mariages at Wellington, said Hudd had -signed a marriage certificate. '

In respect of himself and Ida Brown T mg. He had described himself as a bachelor aged SO years. Ida Hudd, nee Browning, when called to give evidence, said she had believed the statements given m the marriage certificate to be true. After her marriage she had found Hudd's birth certificate; and also a marriage certificate. . ' These he had at first denied, but had subsequently admitted them to be true. ..•■■-■ t She went on to say thaLon May 14, 1927, she went through a form of

marriage with Hudd at Wellington. She had first met him at a boardinghouse m April, 1927, and had kept company with him for about five weeks. . . He then proposed marriage and she accepted. At that time she had not known that he was previously married. They had then lived at Brooklyn until Hudd vent to hospital for nine weeks m October of that year. During his absence she had found his birth certificate and also a marriage form. • The birth certificate, i she said, showed him to be five or 1 six years older than he had represented himself to. be. When she charged him with this he at first denied any falsification, but subsequently he allegedly admitted that the misrepresentations had been made. He also said that hla wife was dead. Under cross-examination the woman said that Hudd received letters from abroad, but -he usually • had them addressed care of a friend: ' Counsel: Did Hudd tell you from whom the correspondence was coming? — He said that it was from his brother. He said his wife's father had told him that his wife was dead, added the witness, who went on to state that she had learned very little of his son, who, she had reason to 'believe, was m the care of Hudd's mother-in-law. Took Proceedings She had given the evidence regarding the certificate to the police' during her husband's absence, but this had caused him no alarm, as he had said he had nothing to worry about as his former wife was dead. Under cross-examination by Mr. Ongley, she admitted" that she had. wished to leave Hudd, but had remained because he wanted her to stay. She had then taken separation proceedings against him, but this had not been allowed to interfere with their domestic affairs. He later agreed to a voluntary separation. -He, had her on several occasions when they were living apart. V Counsel: You were pleased •to see him? We 11 , .1 wanted to see the children. Did you and Mr. Harris go for a holiday" together? — I prefer not to answer that question. You and Hudd are living together? — We are. Mrs. Hudd said she had seen some of the letters Hudd had received and read some of- them, but there was nothing to suggest that he had a wife m England. The certificates had been found m Hudd's cash-box while he was m hospital. Counsel: Had you any difficulty with any man previously? — No. She said she had never kept company with men who had been married. Hudd". and Harris had always been^friendly even before her marriage to Hudd. . . Frederick James, Harris said he had known Hudd since 1920 or 1921. He had been a frequent visitor to their house. On one. occasion Hudd had said: "That reminds me of my own boy m the Old Country," when Harris's own son, aged eleven, was m the room. Letters addressed to Hudd care of Harris had come from Hudd's brother, Sid., said Harris. After receiving one of these letters Harris said his brother, Sid, had seen' his wife. Hudd also allegedly mentioned that, while on leave from France on one occasion, he had seen his wife m a state of

intoxication, drinking with other • men. He had remarked that -by a strange coincidence his wife In England ■ was thinking of.' getting married, while, he himself was< thinking^ of doing the same. . ; V ,\ _.- ■; Juat prior to r police proceedings, said Harris, he mentioned that his, wife wasrdead-. This, had been the only reference. - . . Cross-examined by Mr. Ongley, Harris said he had known Miss. Browning for some time. He' : and ' Mrs. Hudd had gone to Christchurch for a holiday and had lived together, there, as man and wife. On their return, Mrs. Hudd had pleaded with him to take her to Sydney. That was after she had informed the police concerning Hudd. „ _ Counsel: May I suggest that- you were infatuated ? — 1 7 felt - very foolish and indiscreet about it all,.. and- 1 : am,. „ very pleased she has, gone back for _' : my own sake. "This is* the -frankest witness I have ■• seen for a long tlhiej" observed His Honor. ; James William Hudd, painter, of Wellington, m giving . evidence, said .-. that he was married m 1915. '' .*' Saw Her Afterwards In August, 1918; 'he -was- discharged from . the army- and had then? gone straight to see his wife. He found her at home with ' a man .with whom she had been- living. She had left immediately, but he had, remained.; ' 1 „ He had seen he^r several times .' . after that. In December 1918, .he. : " went to work at a mental hospital, ■ and it was not until June,. 1918,. ' - that he saw her again. He later met a man who thought she. had"- , died. ; ' ' ■■.:■■■•■>■■■ „.;_,.;•;.; : ■/,./': "I said to my mate: 'come along and see her old man/-"- continued Huddr They went^aiibV^fQu3ttd^K!^^h I '-^ls^aiial seat "I said, 'where's Violet/ and he said: 'She's dead> arid^ so will' you be if you don't get out.' So after that I asked him to come and have a drink." Hudd said that later, he heard that she had gone away . with a Welshman and had subsequently died. Under cross-examination Hudd said it was not correct to say that aiiy r ... thing had been said m a lette^ about his wife m England. .... None of the letters- , had . made- . any reference to his wife. . • The reference' to someone getting married at the same time as himself concerned his sister. ! He had. not opened any of the letters from England while at Harris's place. When asked why he did not do so he had .replied: "It's only the . same .old thing — 'doing well and the . weather's crook.' .". He had never tried to hide the fact of his; former marriage from anyone; "It takes-all sorts to make a world," . his Honor remarked. "Oh, we're ffot so bad considering," Hudd replied to a question concerning his domestic happiness. • Cross-examined by Mr. Macassey, Hudd said he had received his war pension up to 1922. This pension had been made out quite separately from his wife's, so that would be why he- had heard nothing of her through that channel.. | If he had had any reason to believe

sh e was r> still :; alive'," ■ tie would " have written to the; Pensions Department for information^. ;.- " '; % :'';.■ :-' ' ■' . He had remained m England three years after i'his ' discharge and during that time had visited his relations at Croydon. His brothers "had heard .nothing concerning her; "I used to say to chaps I knew: 'Have you seen the wife?'" As his mother-in-law was hostile he had never had an opportunity to see hfs son. . : : : . . '■ When told -that certain evidence his wife had given, conflicted with his own, Hudd said: "I am sorry to say. sir, that my wife here is a habitual liar." Mrs. Hudd had asked him to make the alteration m the marriage form, he alleged. She had said: "Mother would like to know that I was marrying a man twelve years older than I myself." I His brother had never mentioned anything about his first wife. .On that point, he alleged, ; Harris had lied;; knowingly or unknowingly. Any mention of a strange coincidence had to do with his sister's and not his former wife's marriage. Hudd was, found ,not guilty on the charge of bigamy, sentence on the other charge being deferred on a technical point.